The Supreme Court of India has issued directives aimed at speeding up the resolution of criminal cases involving elected members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. Additionally, a petitioner has raised concerns about the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, the petitioner, invoked Article 32 of the Constitution to approach the Supreme Court, seeking two specific reliefs. Firstly, he sought the prompt adjudication of criminal cases involving elected members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. Secondly, Upadhyay contested the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. The legal proceedings commenced with notices served to the Union of India, State Governments, and High Courts. The petitioner argued that timely resolution of criminal cases involving elected representatives was essential to uphold public trust in the democratic process.

The petitioner contended that the prolonged delay in resolving criminal cases against elected representatives has a detrimental impact on public confidence in the political system. To address this concern, the petitioner advocated for the creation of special courts or designated courts exclusively tasked with handling cases involving Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs), ensuring speedy and day-to-day trials. The Union of India, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, adopted a non-adversarial position and expressed a willingness to establish special courts to expedite trials. Throughout the proceedings, various orders were issued, considering options such as setting up multiple special courts, allocating funds, and ultimately opting for designated courts at the district level. The petitioner argued that a comprehensive and consistent approach was necessary to tackle the systemic issues causing delays in the resolution of cases against elected representatives.

The bench led by Hon'ble Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, also including Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, issued a landmark judgment focusing on the prompt resolution of criminal cases involving elected members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. The court recognized the paramount importance of expeditiously handling such cases to uphold public confidence in the democratic process. Emphasizing that prolonged delays in the adjudication process could undermine public trust in the political system, the Supreme Court underscored the necessity for a comprehensive and uniform mechanism to address systemic issues contributing to delays in the resolution of cases involving elected representatives.

The Supreme Court, adopting a proactive stance, outlined guidelines for the creation of designated courts at the district level with the specific purpose of exclusively handling cases concerning Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies. These designated courts were instructed to carry out day-to-day trials, thereby ensuring a rapid and effective legal process. Additionally, the court directed the Chief Justices of the High Courts to oversee the advancement of these cases and provided instructions for the prompt appointment of public prosecutors.

The Supreme Court issued the following directives:

1. The Supreme Court has directed Chief Justices of High Courts nationwide to initiate suo motu cases titled "In Re Designated Courts for MPs/MLAs." This directive is aimed at closely overseeing and expediting the resolution of pending criminal cases against elected representatives, reinforcing the commitment to ensuring the timely disposal of such cases.

2. A special bench, headed by the Chief Justice or a designated bench, has been established to regularly hear the suo motu case titled "In Re Designated Courts for MPs/MLAs." This special bench is empowered to issue essential orders and directions to ensure the prompt disposal of criminal cases against elected representatives. Additionally, the bench has the authority to seek assistance from the Advocate General or the Prosecutor as needed during the proceedings.

3. The primary duties of Principal District and Sessions Judges involving assigning of cases to relevant courts and submitting regular reports to the High Courts.

4. Designated courts have been directed to give precedence to cases involving Members of Parliament (MPs) or Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) facing charges that carry the penalty of death or life imprisonment. Subsequently, cases with potential imprisonment for five years or more are to be prioritized, followed by other cases. Additionally, trial courts have received instructions to avoid granting unnecessary adjournments.

5. The Chief Justice has the authority to schedule cases with stay orders before a special bench to facilitate the prompt initiation of trials. The validity of stay orders is to be carefully examined, and efforts should be made to resolve them expeditiously.

6. Principal District and Sessions Judges are tasked with ensuring sufficient infrastructure for designated courts, which includes the implementation of technology to enhance their operational efficiency.

7. High Courts are mandated to establish a dedicated section on their websites, offering district-wise details on the year of filing, the quantity of pending cases, and the current stage of proceedings.

In addressing the petitioner's argument regarding the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Act, the court opted not to provide a definitive opinion, considering it unnecessary for the resolution of the current case. Instead, the court emphasized the pressing requirement for a strong mechanism to accelerate the trial of criminal cases involving elected representatives.

Case: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India and Anr.

Writ Petition (C) No. 699 of 2016.

Read/Download Order